2 different groups. there were 2 different groups talking on the radio. The channel of the men on the ground went from "hostiles, some still moving" to "holy crap, kids" and them running with the kids to get them out and to a hospital.
I cannot comment about the distances. Have neither the training, experience, math not interest to acquire it. And I dont think the camera platform was also the shooting platform. They seemed to be different, at different angles. But even if the airships were out of range (which I don't know is true, but am willing to accept), if the men with guns were known bad guys, or where known bad guys stand, I don't expect our guys to get close enough to even the shooting contest. That would be pretty dumb. A guy with an RPG in Baghdad is a legitimate target, in my opinion. A guy with an assault weapon who is a bad guy is a legitimate target, in my opinion. And, once it was "known" that they guys getting shot had guns and "RPGs", then with our ground forces seconds away and on the way in to the battle zone, a black truck makes a pickup on the hostiles, it again follows logically what should happen to them. Not saying it is right. Not saying there might be a little "gung ho" going on (but it is my understanding there is a lot of "gung-ho" in the service, which is why they are IN the service, and why there should be clear rules of engagement. "Dying to engage" is an unfortunate turn of phrase, but isnt that exactly their job at times? I would love to know more about their mission. What was their job that day? Routine Patrol? Flying cover? Hunting for bad guys? That makes a lot of difference in JUDGING their actions. And that judging, in my mind, is best done by their superiors, who understand their mission, and what it takes to do that mission. I may have personal feelings about it, but no expertise in critiquing their performance. It may be that they shot too soon. It may be that their supervisor should not have approved the shooting. It may be that they were too eager. It may be that their empathy was lacking, but it may be that their empathy was just right for their job. Have you been in combat? Not just trained and in the service (which trumps most of my opinions), but in actual combat making these decisions day in and day out? In the kind of long-term deployments these guys are seeing? I have not, but have read about them, and talked to some close friends who have been there (what little they are willing to talk about), and cannot fault men WE put in these positions for coping as they need to to get through it. I have heard the kind of gallows humor that goes on on lobster boats. and police forces, and emergency rooms. I cannot judge people in those jobs for whatever they do amongst themselves for ways to get through the day. If we don't like what these men become, we shouldnt have put them in these positions. And we should get them out. Yeah, I may be totally wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. If a number of people who have done the same job criticize them, then I am more than willing to take another look at it, with that new information. If Bruce or Tim tell me I am full of crap, I will listen intently. These are not the first civilians. Or journalists. Or Reuters cameramen, for Pete's sake, that have been killed. This was 2007. And recently, the head of Reuters said that he had seen the video, and he doesnt blame these soldiers for the deaths (even though he wants the video released under FOI, but that is the reporter talking). I cannot even, at this moment, say it shouldn't have happened. I still want to know who the men with the assault rifles were, and what the helicopters mission was. That information is vital to understanding what happened, for me. I WANT TO KNOW MORE. For me, that is the only good that may come from releasing this video. That we may learn a little more about what happened. And about what should have happened. And that facts on the ground can be changed in the future to prevent these types of happenings. (Was the gunship within their rules of engagement? Have the rules changed from this event? Were the shooters a little to trigger happy? Do cameramen let the US know when and where they will be going? Do men with guns worry about circling gunships? Would a father with kids in the car still bring his children "into a firefight"? His compassion was admirable, but he did put his kids into harms way. A horrible payback for his willingness to help.) There are a lot of things that went wrong in a row to have this happen. And a lot of things that can be done in the future to help prevent SOME civilian deaths in a warzone. But the number won't ever be zero, until it is reclassified "not a war zone", at which point they will just have normal crime and murder, not war. On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Medic <[email protected]> wrote: > > JJ, I call shenanigans on most of what you wrote. The delay from firing to > impact suggests the heli was over a mile away when it engaged. Clearly not > in _any_ imminent danger. The crew was dying to engage. They saw what they > wanted to see. They were jonesing to light up the wounded man hoping he > would go for a weapon so they could engage again. It's tragic yes, but it's > also f'n needless. Stop making excuses. And they didn't "change gears" when > they realized there was kids. The video ends by saying "don't bring your > kids to a battle zone" and then giggling about it. Changing gears from > douche to superdouche perhaps. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:315097 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
